Written by: Jennifer Cheeseman Day

Have you ever wondered about the diversity of your occupation?  What is its demographic composition, age distribution, educational attainment, earnings ranges, percent U.S. citizen, or from where people are commuting?  These questions and more can be answered using the new Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation, which will be available tomorrow, Nov. 29.

For the past five decades, the Census Bureau has had the job of measuring the diversity of the American workforce.  After the decennial censuses of 1970, ’80, ’90, and 2000, we published the “EEO Special File” tabulation, a comprehensive set of tables of the civilian workforce showing the demographic characteristics of sex, race, and ethnicity, by detailed occupation, for the nation, states, metro areas, counties, and places.

This immense tabulation serves as the primary benchmark for organizations wishing to compare the diversity of their labor force with the diversity of the areas from which they draw their workers, and for the federal government to monitor and enforce compliance with civil rights laws.  We are now publishing a new version of the EEO Tabulation based on the five-year American Community Survey (2006-2010) for the first time.

The new EEO Tabulation consists of 107 tables with about 6,500 different geographic entities, for residence, worksite, and commuting flows (that is, the connections between where people work and where they live). The tables include 488 detailed occupation categories based on the 2010 Standard Occupational Classification, 15 different race and ethnicity group combinations, and – for the first time – citizenship. The tables cover a wealth of additional information, including age, industry, earnings, educational attainment, and unemployment status.

This tabulation is so detailed, it took more than 1 trillion calculations to complete, yielding more than 19 billion statistics.

The Census Bureau created the EEO Tabulation for four sponsoring agencies: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division, Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Economists, researchers, and business leaders will find that these statistics are the only source for counts of workers in specific occupations by sex, race and ethnicity, crossed by specific characteristics at such a local geographic level.  City planners will find that the tables provide extensive information on the movements of different populations between worksites and the communities in which they live. Researchers can explore the relationship between civil rights laws and equality in work opportunities. Labor specialists can study the geographic patterns in work opportunities or other geographic patterns in labor force characteristics.

These tabulations will be released tomorrow. We hope that by publishing this rich information source, easily accessible through the  American FactFinder on-line statistics search tool, it will help people in many fields discover new things about the American workforce.

If you would like to learn more, visit the Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation page.

Written by: Jonathan Vespa and Jamie Lewis Thomas

New statistics released today show that American households are increasingly older, with 39 percent headed by someone 45 to 64 years old. In addition, the percentage headed by someone at least age 75 grew from 6 percent in 1960 to 10 percent in 2012.

But where do these older Americans live? Are there variations by region?

Some areas of the country are aging faster than others (see Figure). The Northeast region has the smallest share of under-30 households at 11 percent. Among households headed by 30- to 44-year-olds, the West had the largest share at 28 percent, followed by the South at 27 percent. The Northeast and Midwest have the smallest shares at 25 percent (and are not statistically different from one another).

In addition to having the smallest share of younger households, we also see more older households in the Northeast. Households headed by those 75 and older are concentrated in the Northeast, which has the largest share at 12 percent. The West has the smallest at 9 percent.

Although the tables released today do not explore these potential explanations, several factors may influence regional variation in the age of householders. These factors include the health of the older population, the strength of the job market in particular geographic areas, and geographic concentrations of immigrant populations, which tend to be younger than the native-born. For more information on immigrant populations, see the U.S. Census Bureau’s report on the foreign-born.

More detail about these trends and information on the living arrangements of America’s households, families, and children are available in a new series of tables released by the U.S. Census Bureau using the 2012 Current Population Survey.

Written by: Kathleen Short

In November 2011, the Census Bureau, with support from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released the first set of estimates for the research supplemental poverty measure as suggested by an interagency technical working group. Today, the Census Bureau releases the second report describing research on the new supplemental poverty measure.

New in this report is a comparison of official poverty rates by state to estimates using the supplemental measure. The new measure creates a more complex statistical picture incorporating additional items, such as thresholds that vary geographically by housing costs, tax payments, work expenses and in-kind benefits in its family resource estimates. The supplemental measure is designed to provide a further understanding of economic conditions and trends for families and individuals.

Again, this is the first year state-level supplemental poverty estimates are available. The Census Bureau recommends the use of three-year averages to compare poverty rates across states using the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement.(This is also the first year for which three years of supplemental poverty estimates are available to make the comparison with the official rates.) The three-year-average poverty rates for the U.S. for 2009-2011 were 15.0 percent with the official measure and 15.8 percent using the supplemental measure.

The map below shows the United States divided into three categories by state: states with higher and lower rates with the supplemental measure compared with the official measure, and states that are not statistically different between the two measures.

Higher supplemental poverty rates by state may occur because of many sources: geographic adjustments for housing costs, a different mix of housing tenure or metropolitan area status, or higher nondiscretionary expenses, such as taxes or medical expenses.

The supplemental poverty rates for the District of Columbia and 14 states are higher than the official poverty rates, as noted by the lighter shades. These states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Virginia.

Medium shades represent the 26 states where supplemental poverty rates are lower than the official poverty rates. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Lower supplemental poverty rates occur because of lower thresholds reflecting lower housing costs, a different mix of housing tenure or metropolitan area status, or more generous noncash benefits.

Darker shades are those 10 states that are not statistically different under the two measures and include Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington.

The interagency technical working group stated that the official poverty measure, as defined in Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 14, will not be replaced by the supplemental poverty measure. It noted that the official measure is sometimes identified in legislation regarding program eligibility and funding distribution, while the supplemental measure will not be used in this way. The supplemental measure is designed to provide information on aggregate levels of economic need at a national level or within large subpopulations or areas and, as such, the supplemental measure will be an additional macroeconomic statistic providing further understanding of economic conditions and trends for families and individuals.

Written by: Katy Rossiter

The holiday season is upon us and for the Geography Division at the U.S. Census Bureau, the season starts with GIS Day!  Today is GIS Day, a worldwide celebration that highlights how geography and GIS can help answer questions.  Geographic information systems (GIS) combine software and data to display and analyze spatial information.  GIS allows us to visualize and interpret data through maps and charts, and in a way that is quick to understand.

At the Census Bureau, GIS plays an important role in our everyday work, not only in the Geography Division, but throughout the Census Bureau.  Whether it is using the OnTheMap tool to help answer questions about our working population or creating maps for our data visualization gallery to make data not only interesting and fun but also easier to understand, you will find GIS technology throughout census.gov.

In addition, we utilize GIS to be more efficient in our daily activities and we are now better able to share products with data users.  For example, GIS has allowed us to create and print millions of maps for taking a census in a relatively short period.  We are also able to provide GIS files that data users can use in their own GIS software and a web-mapping application with a web mapping service (WMS) for those who do not have their own GIS or want to stream our data as a base in their own applications.  We create maps, charts, reports, and tools so our data can be viewed spatially, all using GIS.

At the Census Bureau, we will be celebrating on November 15 with the Geospatial Summit for employees. The Geospatial Summit will bring awareness of geospatial technologies within the Census Bureau, allowing staff to broaden their knowledge through presentations and lightning talks, hands-on demonstrations and a map gallery showing some of the maps created using GIS. Learning from their colleagues through presentations on technologies, such as web-based mapping, enterprise GIS, geospatial data visualization, and web application development will help staff across the Census Bureau use geospatial technology in their work.  Geospatial technology will be used to better assign our field staff to conduct censuses and surveys, assist analysts reviewing data, improve the accuracy of our geospatial products and create products for the public to visualize our data.

Look for more blogs in the coming months that delve deeper into how the Census Bureau uses GIS technology.

Written by: Trudi Renwick

Since the publication of the first official U.S. poverty estimates in 1964, there has been a continuing debate about the best approach to measure income and poverty in the United States. An interagency technical working group recognized that alternative estimates of income and poverty can provide useful information to the public as well as to the federal government. Therefore, in 2009, it asked the Census Bureau, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, to develop a new measure that will allow for an improved understanding of the economic well-being of American families and how federal policies affect those living in poverty. In November 2011, the Census Bureau released the first set of estimates for the research supplemental poverty measure, pertaining to 2010. The estimates for 2011 will be released next week.

The current official poverty measure was developed in the early 1960s, and only a few minor changes have been implemented since it was first adopted in 1969. The measure compares a family’s or individual’s before-tax cash income to a set of thresholds that vary by the size and ages of the family members. These official poverty calculations do not take into account the value of in-kind benefits, such as those provided by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and housing and energy assistance. 

The technical design of the supplemental poverty measure draws on the recommendations of a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report and the extensive research on poverty measurement conducted over the past 15 years. The new measure creates a more complex statistical picture incorporating additional items, such as tax payments, work expenses and in-kind benefits in its family resource estimates.

Thresholds used in the new measure are derived from Consumer Expenditure Survey expenditure data on basic necessities (food, shelter, clothing and utilities) and are adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of housing. The new thresholds are not intended to assess eligibility for government assistance.

Supplemental poverty measure family resources are defined as the value of cash income from all sources, plus the value of in-kind benefits that are available to buy the basic bundle of goods, minus necessary expenses for critical goods and services not included in the thresholds. In-kind benefits include nutritional assistance, subsidized housing, and home energy assistance. Necessary expenses that must be subtracted include income taxes, social security payroll taxes, child care and other work-related expenses, child support payments to another household, and contributions toward the cost of medical care and health insurance premiums.

Next week’s report will compare 2011 supplemental poverty estimates with 2011 official poverty estimates for numerous demographic groups. It will also provide state level supplemental poverty estimates using three years of Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement data and compare 2010 supplemental poverty estimates with 2011 estimates. In addition, the report will examine the effect of excluding individual resource or expenditure elements on supplemental poverty rates. 

For more details on the new measure, please see the technical appendix of the November 2011 report or the technical webinar presented prior to last year’s release.

Written by:  Marc Perry and Steven Wilson

Within metro and micro areas, what were the geographic patterns of population growth between 2000 and 2010? How did growth compare in the central and outlying census tracts of the areas? How did population growth vary by age group, or by race and Hispanic origin? How does population growth for the decade compare when you examine different distances from city hall for a metro area’s largest principal city?

These are just a few of the questions that can be addressed with an online thematic map viewer, released today, or the recently released 2010 Census Special Report,  Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010, and its associated online tools. The report examined population distribution and change in the nation’s largest centers of population and economic activity. The thematic map viewer complements the report and provides a high-resolution view of 2010 Census residential patterns and changes in those patterns since Census 2000 using all census tracts in the United States and Puerto Rico. The map viewer displays data for 34 different characteristics, including population density and change, race and Hispanic origin, and broad age groups. With the map viewer, you can look at national patterns and zoom in to any metro or micro area. Alternatively, you can use a handy query tool that allows you to scroll through an alphabetized list of areas or find an area by typing in an area’s title. Clicking within a metro or micro area brings up a pop-up window containing summary data for the statistical area and the United States, adding context to the tract-level results.

In addition to the online thematic maps, three other online tools released with the report provide more detailed views of individual metro or micro areas:

• Population pyramids showing age and sex structure
• Comparative distance profiles that graph U.S. metro area populations and visualize how they are spatially distributed in relation to their largest city’s city hall
• Excel files containing Census 2000 and 2010 Census data for each metro or micro area, with population change for the decade already calculated

This suite of tools is a great way to examine both the broader patterns for all metro and micro areas as well as to dive a little deeper into the data.  For example, the 2010 Census Special Report includes a section on metropolitan population distribution and change by distance from city hall. One of the findings showed metro areas with the largest population increase and decrease within two miles of the city hall for their most populous principal city, providing a general impression of the basic degree of centrality of a city’s population growth and decline.  Using the data from the online distance profiles tool—which contains population data in one-mile increments from city hall—we see somewhat different patterns for the narrower one-mile distance. The Chicago area is still the largest gainer, just as it had been for two miles, but San Diego, CA and Portland, OR join the list of areas with the largest numeric gains in population.

Intriguingly, some areas that declined in population within two miles saw population growth within the smaller one-mile distance. Baltimore, for instance, switches from population loss of about 10,000 at the two-mile distance to growth of almost 1,600 people within one mile. The pattern is visible in the below map of the central area of Baltimore City. Most of the census tracts in the one to two mile range from city hall show population declines, often of 10 percent or more, but within one mile of city hall, some tracts more than doubled in population. Other areas with losses of 5,000 or more at the two-mile distance but population gains in the smaller area include Toledo, Pittsburgh, and Grand Rapids.

Similarly, some areas with overall population growth at the two-mile distance also saw faster population growth within one mile.  In the Kansas City metro area, for instance, overall growth of about 1,000 persons at the two-mile distance reflected growth of 3,600 within one mile and population decline of 2,600 in the one-to-two mile range. In the map of the central part of the city of Kansas City, Mo., we see two census tracts more than doubled in population.

The report and additional content are available on the Census Bureau’s Internet site here.

Rapid Growth Doesn’t Necessarily Trump a Big Population Base

Written by: Elizabeth M. Grieco and Christine Gambino

The foreign-born population from Asia increased over the last decade – from 8.2 million in 2000 to 11.6 million in 2011 – and now represents more than one-fourth (29 percent) of all immigrants in the United States.

While sizeable, the foreign-born population from Asia is still smaller than the number of foreign born from Latin America and the Caribbean. As of 2011, there were 21.2 million foreign-born from Latin America and the Caribbean, up from 16.1 million in 2000. More than half (53 percent) of today’s foreign-born population is from Latin America and the Caribbean.

Mexico has remained the largest single country-of-birth group throughout the decade, increasing from 9.2 million in 2000 to 11.7 million in 2011. Currently, the foreign-born from Mexico represents 29 percent of the total foreign-born population. By comparison, the next largest country-of-birth group – the foreign-born from China – accounts for 6 percent of all foreign-born.

Since 2000, the foreign-born population from Asia has grown at a faster rate than the foreign-born population from Latin America and the Caribbean. Between 2000 and 2011, the foreign-born from Asia grew by 41 percent, or 3.7 percent each year. During this same period, the foreign-born from Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 32 percent, or 2.9 percent each year.

For both region-of-birth groups, there were notable differences in the rates of change between the earlier and latter half of the period, with growth slowing considerably during the last five years. Between 2000 and 2006, the foreign-born population from Asia increased 3.7 percent per year, declining to 3.0 percent per year between 2006 and 2011. The foreign-born population from Latin America and the Caribbean increased 4.1 percent per year between 2000 and 2006, dropping to 1.2 percent between 2006 and 2011.

The decline in growth rate of the foreign-born population from Latin America and the Caribbean is largely attributable to the remarkable change in growth rate for the foreign born from Mexico in the latter half of the 2000 to 2011 period. Between 2000 and 2006, the foreign-born population from Mexico increased by 4.3 percent per year. Between 2006 and 2011, the size of the annual increase dropped to less than one-half of 1 percent per year.

Despite the faster rate of growth for the foreign born from Asia in recent years, the size of the foreign-born population from Latin America and the Caribbean will likely remain larger than the foreign-born population from Asia in the near future. Patterns of immigration and emigration between the United States and any region of the world can – and frequently do – change quickly, so it is unclear if the relatively low growth rates seen in the last 5-6 years for some region and country-of-birth groups will continue in the long term.

But what will happen if the foreign-born population from Asia continues to grow at the same higher rate over the next few decades, while the foreign-born from Mexico increases at the same lower rate? Will the foreign-born population from Asia (11.6 million in 2011) grow larger than the population from Latin America and the Caribbean (21.2 million in 2011)?

Even if growth rates stayed the same as those seen in the past 5-6 years, it would take much longer than a few decades for that to happen. Due to its much larger population base in 2011, the foreign-born population from Latin America and the Caribbean will remain the largest region-of-birth group for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how growth patterns change over coming decades and affect the relative size of the populations from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and other regions.